這段時間最關注點在於五月底乃至於六月的整體操作
無意間發現一篇不錯的論文，分享結論的部份給股板板友
論文名稱：INFLATION WITH COVID CONSUMPTION BASKETS
論文連結：https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27352/w27352.pdf
論文結論：
5 Conclusion
There is growing awareness among academics, central bankers, and the
financial media about the challenges of measuring and interpreting inflation
measures during the Pandemic. A major concern is that consumption patterns
are greatly affected by the lockdowns and social-distancing behaviors,
introducing a potential bias into the measurement of CPI inflation.
Using estimates of the changes in consumption expenditures during the
Pandemic, obtained from US credit and debit card transactions by Chetty et
al. (2020), I update the basket of CPI weights and study the effect on on
inflation in 18 countries. In most cases, I find that the Covid price index
has more inflation than the official CPI. In particular, in the US the annual
inflation rate by May 2020 was 0.95% with the Covid basket and only 0.13%
with the official CPI weights. The difference is growing over time as
consumers continue to spend more on food and similar categories experiencing
inflation, and less on transportation and related categories with significant
deflation. The difference is also present in the Core CPI, implying that the
bias is not limited to consumer spending patterns on food and energy.
Furthermore, I show that low-income households are experiencing more
inflation during the crisis, with an annual inflation rate of 1.12% in May
2020, compared to just 0.57% for high-income households.
These results have important implications for policy-makers trying to respond
to the crisis, as they suggest that the cost of living for consumers is
higher than implied by the official CPI.
The welfare implications are particularly relevant for lower-income
households and extend to many countries experiencing a divergence in sectoral
inflation rates. While the persistence of these effects is yet to be seen,
the changes in consumer spending patterns during the first few months of the
Pandemic have already produced a significant difference in inflation dynamics.
機翻如下：
5 結論
學術界、中央銀行家和金融媒體對大流行期間衡量和解釋通脹措施的挑戰的認識越來越深
刻。一個主要的問題是，消費模式受到封鎖和社會隔離行為的極大影響，給CPI通脹的測
量帶來潛在的偏差。
利用Chetty等人（2020）從美國信用卡和借記卡交易中獲得的對大流行期間消費支出變化
的估計，我更新了CPI權重籃子，並研究了對18個國家通貨膨脹的影響。在大多數情況下
，我發現Covid價格指數比官方CPI有更多的通貨膨脹。特別是在美國，到2020年5月，使
用Covid籃子的年通貨膨脹率為0.95%，而使用官方CPI權重的年通貨膨脹率只有0.13%。隨
著時間的推移，這種差異在不斷擴大，因為消費者繼續在食品和經歷通貨膨脹的類似類別
上花費更多，而在交通和有明顯通貨緊縮的相關類別上花費更少。這種差異也存在於核心
CPI中，這意味著這種偏差並不限於消費者在食品和能源上的支出模式。此外，我表明低
收入家庭在危機期間經歷了更多的通貨膨脹，2020年5月的年通貨膨脹率為1.12%，而高收
入家庭只有0.57%。
這些結果對試圖應對危機的決策者俱有重要意義，因為他們認為消費者的生活成本高於官
方CPI所暗示的。 福利問題與低收入家庭特別相關，並擴展到部門通貨膨脹率存在差異的
許多國家。 儘管這些影響的持久性尚待觀察，但在大流行的最初幾個月中，消費者支出
模式的變化已經在通貨膨脹動態方面產生了顯著差異。
心得：
儘管這方面的探討在學界仍在持續
但是通膨數字對比生活壓力顯然有一定落差
假如此落差為真
政府對策與實際的落差，反映在民主國家可能就是直接的政局動盪
當然如果程度不如預期嚴重
那也可能只是民調下滑而非直接政局動盪的程度
政局動盪最直接反映的就是民主政府處理相關民生問題的速度和效率
短期速效的方法，好一點就是加稅，差一點的就是打土豪分田地了
賴帳.....在相關國際貨幣組織的全力支援下，個人認為很難發生
如果美國為主的主導者們都還是堅持去年疫情剛發生的態度
也就是一失火就立刻灌水撲救
......恐慌壓回即買點？